Civil Service Organizations in Norway: Organizational Features
and Tasks
KR I S T I N RU B E C K S E N
ST E I N RO K K A N CE N T R E F O R SO C I A L ST U D I E S U N I F O B A S
DE C E M B E R 2 0 0 4
Working Paper 20 - 2004
PREFACE... 3
SUMMARY... 4
SAMMENDRAG... 5
INTRODUCTION ... 7
Data and method...8
Administrative reform and role purification ...10
STRUCTURAL FEATURES... 11
Form of affiliation...11
Parent ministries...14
Policy area...17
Type of organizational form...20
TASK PORTFOLIO IN STATE ORGANIZATIONS... 24
Types of tasks ...25
Combinations of primary and secondary tasks...29
COMBINATIONS OF TASK PORTFOLIO AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS... 33
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS... 42
Literature ...45
Public Sources ...46
This paper is written as a part of the research project «Regulation, Control and Auditing», funded by the Norwegian Research Foundation. The paper is based on Kristin Rubecksens’ master thesis at the Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the workshop on «Organizational forms, autonomy and control in public sector», Bergen December 1–2, 2003. We wish to thank Paul G. Roness and the other participants at the workshop for helpful comments.
Per Lægreid Prosjektleder
1 The paper is based on a study (Rubecksen 2003) in which civil service organizations were mapped for the years 1989 and 1999 according to organizational structure, types of tasks, financial structures and organizational income.
The paper focuses on civil service organizations in Norway – of particular relevance is central organizational features and structure, task portfolio and how organizational characteristics vary according to type of task.
During the last 20–25 years, important processes of change have taken place within the public sector and modified the surrounding conditions for civil service organizations in Norway. The changes within central government are linked to active, conscious reform attempts, and can be said to have focused on: a) changes in the general regulative frameworks encompassing state organizations, b) development of more independent organizational forms within government, and c) principles for how the state is to select the appropriate organizational forms when reorganizing existing organizations or establishing new governmental organizations (Sand 1996: 187). The results have been a moderation in the government’s general regulative frameworks, and a greater variety in governmental organizational forms as well as change in work procedures and steering structures. Administrative reform in recent years has been characterized by a gradual development from an integrated to disintegrated state (Christensen and Lægreid 2004), as well as a transition from multi-purpose to single-purpose organizations. To what extent has role refinement and reform attempts led to a change in civil service organizations’
defining characteristics – in tasks and organizational structures?
The aim of this paper is to give a brief introduction to distinct features of Norwegian state organizations at two points in time. Data has been gathered for the years 1989 and 1999. The basis for comparison is thus two «snapshots» in time. This enables us to detect stability or change over time, both in distinct features and in relevant patterns or relations between features, task portfolio and policy area.
Tema for notatet er sentrale kjennetegn ved statlige forvaltningsorganer langs dimen- sjonene a) organisatoriske trekk og b) oppgaveportefølje – og c) om sentrale kjennetegn varierer med ulike typer av oppgaver.
Storparten av statens virksomheter er i dag organisert innenfor forvaltningsorgan- modellen som tilknytningsform, og står dermed for hovedparten av statens engasjement og aktivitet. Forvaltningsorganmodellen har siden midten av 1980-tallet gått gjennom viktige endringsprosesser som gjør at forvaltningsorganene i dag står overfor andre rammevilkår enn tidligere. Større lokal institusjonell autonomi og økte frihetsgrader har vært nøkkelbegreper i utviklingen. Forvaltningspolitisk reform i nyere tid har i tillegg vært kjennetegnet av en gradvis overgang fra en integrert stat – til en i større grad fragmentert stat (Christensen and Lægreid 2004), og en overgang fra multifunksjonelle (multi-purpose) til rollespesialiserte (single-purpose) organisasjoner. I hvilken grad har rollespesialisering og reformforsøk ledet til en endring i sentrale kjennetegn ved statlige forvaltningsorganer?
I lys av dette ser notatet nærmere på trekk og kjennetegn i alle statlige virksomheter som ved inngangen til 1989 og 1999 var å regne for egne forvaltningsorganer, om det fremkommer mønstre eller sammenhenger mellom bestemte trekk, og om dette har endret seg over tid som følge av forvaltningspolitisk reform og omstilling. Notatet bygger på en bred kartlegging av alle statlige virksomheter, gjennom bruk av hoved- sakelig offentlige tilgjengelige kilder som statsbudsjett, statsregnskap og Norges Statskalender. Opplysningene har blitt systematisert og lagt inn i en database. Det legges til grunn et instrumentelt og et institusjonelt teoretisk perspektiv, og foretas en sammen- ligning av forvaltningsorganene langs en synkron og diakron dimensjon, både av trekk og mønstre i det enkelte år og mellom de to årene undersøkelsen gjelder. På denne måten er det to «øyeblikksbilder» i tid som danner utgangspunktet for sammenligningen.
Et hovedfunn i notatet er at forvaltningsorganmodellen som tilknytningsform preges av stort mangfold og diversitet både i organisatoriske trekk og oppgaver de ivaretar. Over tid har det vært ytterligere differensieringstendenser innenfor forvaltnings- organformen, slik at den i dag fremstår som mer variert enn tidligere – både organisatorisk og oppgavemessig sett.
Introduction
This paper focuses on the following questions:
What characterizes the civil service organizations in 1989 and 1999 with regards to: (a) organizational features and structure; and (b) task portfolio?; (c) How do organizational characteristics vary according to type of task?
Since 1985 Norwegian civil service organizations have undergone several changes as a result of planned reform activity within government. What is meant by the «agency»
term and what characterizes organizations organized as agencies – vary broadly, to such a degree that it is difficult to discern a specific meaning of the term or a particular organizational form (Pollitt 2005, Thynne 2003). Current interest in the questions raised above should therefore be clear.
The aim of this paper is to give a brief introduction to distinct features of Norwegian state organizations at two points in time. Data has been gathered for the years 1989 and 1999. The basis for comparison is thus two «snapshots» in time. This enables us to detect stability or change over time, both in distinct features and in relevant patterns or relations between features, task portfolio and policy area. Motivating questions are: Do civil service organizations with specific types of tasks or combination of tasks show a tendency towards having certain organizational characteristics? What is most characteristic when considering the time frame – stability, or change in central features and relations within the population?
An instrumental and an institutional perspective provide the wider theoretical framework for different expectations regarding change and stability in organizational structures and tasks over time, and relevant relations between these. In this context applied theory will serve to illustrate the wide range between different approaches in explaining organizations and organizational features. Thus, theory will be used as a general framework for assessing and evaluating the empirical observations. An instrumental approach has been chosen due to the heightened degree of planned reform activity within public sector and state organizations in Norway since 1980. Reform activity and documents have been largely instrumental in character, and in recent years Norwegian political authorities have had great faith in using organizational form as an instrument to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness in governmental agencies.
The report of the Hermansen Commission in 1989 (NOU 1989:5) represents one of the most influential public reform documents in Norway, and stressed the necessity of a corresponding relationship between values and functions of state organizations and their organizational structure. The form of affiliation should be made on the basis of an evaluation of prevailing values and primary tasks in the singular state organization. An instrumental standpoint in this context will stress the importance of types of tasks, organizational form, and changes between 1989 and 1999 to be in accordance with conscious political efforts towards administrative reform. Primary tasks are seen as the vital criteria for the political authorities in opting between different organizational forms. On this basis we may expect to find broader differences in the task portfolio
between civil service organizations having different organizational affiliation than among organizations having the same organizational form (Rubecksen 2003). With reference to the time dimension in the paper, we expect to find greater conformity between type of primary task and organizational form in 1999 than in 1989. This expectation is in part based on the report from the Hermansen Commission in 1989, and also the view of history as being «efficient» (Pollitt 2005, March and Olsen 1998). The most effective organizational structure for maintaining a specific primary task or reaching a certain goal will be chosen.
An institutional perspective emphasizes internal factors in explaining organizations and organizational behaviour (Selznick 1957, March and Olsen 1989, Brunsson and Olsen 1993). Internal values and norms serve as guidelines for action, and individuals are oriented by «logic of appropriateness» rather than «logic of consequences». Over time, institutional identities and capabilities evolve within organizations which do not necessarily conform to the formal structure. In addition, history is seen as «ineffective» – in so far as to bring forward the most effective organizational form in order to reach specific goals (Pollitt 2005). Thus, organizational features and characteristics could be traced back to elements other than anticipation of a specific formal structure’s relative efficiency in reaching official goals or suitability in maintaining certain types of tasks.
The organisational environment might also be of importance when explaining the emergence or existence of certain organizational characteristics and features (Meyer and Rowan 1977, Powell and DiMaggio 1991, Scott 1992, Røvik 1992, 1998, Brunsson and Olsen 1993). Within this perspective, factors contributing towards the shaping of internal values and norms in central agencies, i.e. affiliation to parent ministries and connections to specific policy areas, are expected to influence features and relations between features found in the state organizations. In addition, an institutional approach can be perceived to favour stability over time rather than change. This approach also opens up for a considerable variety in central features and characteristics among organizations having the same organizational subtype, and that those differences could be greater within the singular subtype than between the sub types.
The first section of the paper describes the population according to various organizational features and structures found in 1989 and 1999. Attention will be drawn to form of affiliation, parent ministries and organizational form. State organizations’
connections to specific policy areas will be looked upon as an intake to organizations’
environments. The paper will further address task portfolio in civil service organizations in 1989 and 1999. Task portfolio comprises possible combinations of primary (main) tasks and secondary (additional) tasks of various kinds of the state organizations. The final section of the paper examines relevant patterns or relations between organizational features and task portfolio.
D a t a a n d m e t h o d
When reviewing agency literature, it is evident that many different categorizations of state agencies or state organizations have been made. However, it is not always clear
what is meant by the term «agency», or even what characterizes different types of state organizations (Pollitt 2005, Pollitt and Talbot 2003).
In this context, a state organization is considered to be a state organization which:
• is located within the state as a legal person/entity
• is instructible in principle
• executes state activities and tasks (which means that the organization in question is considered to be the «state» within its field of function)
• is financed in full or in large by governmental funds channelled through the state budget.
According to this, ministries constitute agencies. However, for the purpose of this paper ministries are not included as units of analysis. The ministries have a particularly strong connection to the political leadership, and maintain a dual role as political steering instruments in addition to their executive tasks. Units of analysis have thus been defined for all civil service organizations in 1989 and 1999 located directly beneath a ministry.2
The paper employs a qualitative and a quantitative approach as well as an extensive and explorative design in order to assess the questions raised. Civil service organizations have been «mapped» to include a broad range of variables for 1989 and 1999 relying on analysis mainly of public budget documents (annual state budgets and accounts, annexes to the state budget, annual outlines of Norwegian central government administration:
The Norwegian State Calendar). A corresponding set of documents has been employed for both years. The Government’s annual budget proposal is submitted to the Storting in the autumn of each year, and consists of several documents. Report to the Storting No. 1 is the National Budget, in which the Government states reasons for its priorities and budget proposals, and in which the central government budget is presented in the context of trends in the national economy. A parliamentary bill, Proposition to the Storting No. 1, (the «Yellow Book»), outlines the Government’s proposals for the national budget. The total government budget is set out, showing how funds are proposed to be allocated to the various budget posts and items for each ministry. A more detailed description of the budget proposal is found in annexes to Proposition to the Storting No 1.
Each ministry is responsible for preparing these annexes.
The validity and reliability of using public budget documents is considered to be high. Public budget documents follow prefixed, mandatory standards for information and reporting that applies to all state organizations, and budget documents therefore give similar information for all relevant units. Even though there has been some
2 The delineation of the population – or «who’s in and who’s out» – also involves decisions on specific organizational units. Whether the courts of appeal should be considered to be «civil service organizations» is debateable. The Supreme Court is not an instructible state organization, and it has its own budget independent of the Ministry of Justice. It is therefore excluded from the population. Lower levels of the courts of appeal maintain certain administrative functions as well and receive funding through their parent ministry – and are therefore included.
According to the same criteria, military operative units are excluded as well as the Royalty. Residing military units and the royal administration is included however. Due to the time frame in question, civil service units established after 1999 are not included.
development in the extent of detail in budget documents over time towards more extensive reporting on civil service organizations’ activities, and fewer specifications on the use of civil service organizations’ resources (St.prp. nr. 87 (1989−90), St.prp. nr. 65 (1990–91)), it has been possible to extract comparable data for 1989 and 1999.
Mandatory standards and type of information presented have essentially remained the same. The formal, cognitive character of public budget documents also limits the occurrence of subjective references; however, some elements of subjectivity cannot be eliminated entirely. The mapping of civil service organizations’ primary and supplementary tasks mainly builds on the detailed description of the state organizations given in annexes to Proposition to the Storting No 1 for 1989 and 1999. For the majority of units the information in these official documents has been sufficient to establish the task portfolio with some certainty. For other organizations, the name of the organization itself clearly indicates the nature of its tasks and functions. It has been necessary for some organizations to supplement the information given in annexes with other sources (Norges Statskalender for 1999, homepages on the Internet) due to the lack of or incomplete information of the relevant tasks and functions. The occurrence of subjective judgement and uncertainty is therefore somewhat greater for organizations where scarce information is given in annexes to the National budget. The paper also relies on information available in the database on the organization of the Norwegian state administration, developed at the LOS-centre (now the Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies) in collaboration with Norwegian Social Science Data Services. Originally, this database contained information on organizational structure and organizational change in ministries and central agencies from 1947 onwards (Rolland, Roness and Ågotnes 1998). It has been subsequently extended to include similar information on all state organizations in Norway, and made accessible through the Internet.3
The mapping of state organizations has been made according to a set of categories (types of tasks, organizational characteristics, policy areas) to which the specific state organizations have been assigned according to whether they satisfy the various criteria or not, as opposed to using a single category, i.e. tasks or organizational form. This method is intended to provide a more detailed picture as to what constitutes the different types of civil service organizations.
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e f o r m a n d r o l e p u r i f i c a t i o n
During the last 20–25 years, important processes of change have taken place within the public sector and modified the surrounding conditions for civil service organizations in Norway. The changes within central government are linked to active, conscious reform attempts, and can be said to have focused on: a) changes in the general regulative frameworks encompassing state organizations, b) development of more independent organizational forms within government, and c) principles for how the state is to select the appropriate organizational forms when reorganizing existing organizations or
3(http://www.nsd.uib.no/data/polsys/).
establishing new governmental organizations (Sand 1996: 187). The results have been a moderation in the government’s general regulative frameworks and a greater variety in governmental organizational forms as well as change in work procedures and steering structures. Norwegian reform attempts have largely focused on the internal structure and organization of central government, its function and tasks, work procedures, decision-making, and steering structures. The pace of change within central government heightened during the nineties in the aftermath of the Hermansen Report on «A better organized state» (NOU 1989:5). This report represents one of the most influential public reform documents in Norway, and stresses that there should be a corresponding relationship between values and function of state organizations and organizational structure. The report also calls for the political leadership to be more deliberative and consistent in their choice of organizational forms in channelling different types of state activities (Wik 2001).
More recently, administrative reform has been characterized by a gradual development from an integrated to disintegrated state (Christensen and Lægreid 2004), as well as a transition from multi-purpose to single-purpose organizations. There has also been a gradually greater scope and itensity of the NMP movement from 1990 onwards (Lægreid et al. 2003). Attempts at separating the various functions and tasks into different administrative bodies, imply a change from a unified central administration with mixed roles to a more specialized and fragmented state administration with specific roles. To what extent has role refinement and reform attempts led to a change in civil service organizations’ defining characteristics – in tasks and organizational structures?
Structural features
F o r m o f a f f i l i a t i o n
State organizations differ in their form of affiliation to the political authorities and to parliament. Based on an instrumental perspective and guidelines given the Hermansen Report, «A better organized state», it was expected that primary tasks and functions would influence the choice of organizational form for the civil service organizations.
The classification of units as being ordinary civil service organizations, civil service organizations with extended authority, or governmental administrative enterprises, builds to some extent on previous accounts (in particular Statskonsult 1997, 1998).4 In addition, public documents such as the annual state budget and accounts provide information on what form of organization the singular organization is considered to possess. Thus, budgetary disposition and budgetary principles indicate affiliation. In the state budget, ordinary civil service organizations are positioned under the section of «the states own debit and revenue», they are gross budgeted and have separate budget chapters relating
4 In this respect, «form of affiliation» represents a judicial term, and as such grants different sets of formal constraints or freedom of action in the interplay with general governmental regulative frameworks. The level of local autonomy and political control to a certain degree (at least formally), follows as a consequence of affiliation. For a central agency to have a different organizational form than that of an ordinary civil service agency, a distinct political resolution has to be made.
to a debit side and a revenue side. They receive governmental grants/subsidies mainly through customary budget entries, and are tightly coupled to the main principles of the governmental budget system. In comparison, the other two sub-categories of civil service organizations have enhanced budgetary leeway, emphasized through the use of particular budget entries. Organizations with extended authorities are budgeted with a net amount as an overall solution, and as such receive a non-specified governmental subsidy or grant, thus emphasizing their particularly free and independent position towards their parent ministry and the political authorities (Finansdepartementet, Finans- avdelingen 1999).5 Governmental administrative enterprises are kept separate in the budget system from the other two sub-categories of civil service organizations, not as
«the state’s own debit and revenue», but as part of «the business management of the state». In contrast to organizations with extended authority which are fully net budgeted, government enterprises are only part net budgeted. This applies to their day-to-day funding while investments are budgeted gross. In this way, the debit and revenue side are seen in relation to each other, and the enterprises at the end of a budget term may either break even, experience a surplus, or a deficit.
Table 1 displays the state organizations by sub-category of affiliation within the model of civil service organizations in 1989 and 1999:
Table 1. Form of affiliation in 1989 and 1999. Absolute figures and percent
1989 1999
Form of affiliation Number of units %
(N=249) Number of units % (N=193) Ordinary civil service organizations 234 94 174 90 Civil service organizations with
extended authority 6 2 11 6 Governmental administrative
enterprises 9 4 8 4
Total 249 100 193 100
Sources: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1988–89 and 1998–99), St.meld. nr. 3 (1989–90 and 1999–2000), Norges Statskalender 1989 and 1999
Based on criteria of what constitutes a state organization within this form of affiliation, there were 249 such state organizations in 1989. 94% of these were ordinary civil service organizations and as such represented the most common organizational sub-category.
Governmental administrative enterprises were less common, and there were even fewer in the category of civil service organizations with extended authority.
5 Organizations with extended authority and governmental administrative enterprise are given broad authority of different kinds due to their particular organizational form. In these instances, authorities go hand-in-hand with organizational form. Ordinary civil service organizations are not exempted from general governmental rules and regulations in principle but can be delegated special authority by the parent ministry or parliament if needed.
Special authority can be of a financial kind (e.g. budgetary) or administrative (concerning personnel, terms of employment. level of salaries etc.). Special authorities is delegated on the basis of the particular circumstances experienced by an agency or group of state organizations, and do not follow the organizational form per se as is the case for organizations with extended authority and governmental administrative enterprises.
In 1999, 193 state organizations were identified as civil service units. Similar to 1989, ordinary civil service organizations constituted the most widespread organizational sub- category: 174 organizations, equivalent to 90% of the population, were of this organizational sub-type this year. There were only eight government administrative enterprises, and eleven civil service organizations with extended authority.
Three main observations can be made in Table 1. First of all, the table shows the significant decline in the number of civil service organizations during the time-period in question. There was a decrease of 56 organizations from 1989 to 1999, representing a 23% decline in the size of the population. Secondly, the reduction is most prominent among ordinary civil service organizations. Nevertheless, this sub-type appears to be relatively stable across time considering the proportion of the total population constituted by this type. A third observation is that there has been an increase in state organizations organized as civil service organizations with extended authority. This is the only sub-type that experienced a growth in numbers from 1989 until 1999, something which could be perceived as support for an instrumental perspective. It indicates that central authorities have had a desire to follow-up on recommendations made in the Hermansen Report regarding an extended use of this particular type of state organization.
The decline in the size of the population needs further comment. One wonders if the Norwegian government has been «rolling back the state» as part of a conscious attempt to reduce public spending (Parker and Burton 1991, Rhodes 1997). 153 of the 249 civil service organizations identified in 1989 form comparable units in 1999 (Rubecksen 2003).6 For the remaining 96 units forming state organizations in 1989, there has been some type of organizational «ending event» (i.e. organizational dissolution, merging, complex restructuring, absorption, dividing). Most of the organizations (73%) experienced ending events which led to the end of the organization as such, but allowed for the activity to be continued through new organizational structures. Only a small part has actually ceased to exist in the meaning of pure organizational dissolution (13 organizations). 7 For instance, the Norwegian college reform during the 1990s resulted in the merger of 98 regional and specialized colleges into 26 «new» state colleges, thereby reducing their numbers by 75 percent.
27% of the organizations experienced continuation events (organizational maintenance), which in turn led to a removal from relevant units of analysis in 1999. Most of the continuation events involved horizontal changes (moving units to a different hierarchal level), but there were also vertical changes (change in form of affiliation for units, including change of legal statute).89
6 Approximately 40 organizations represent “new» organizational units in 1999.
7 http://www.nsd.uib.no/data/polsys/
8 Exact numbers relating to the different organizational ending events for the 96 organizations are as follows: 28 organizations ending by complex restructuring (among others the Colleges), 17 organizations ending by equal status merger, 13 organizations ending by pure dissolution, 7 organizations ending by absorption, 1 organization ending by dividing.Continuing events (organizational maintenance): 17 organizations horizontally moved, 10 organizations vertically changed, 3 privatized (Rubecksen 2003, Database on the organization of the Norwegian state administration).
P a r e n t m i n i s t r i e s
All state organizations organized as central agencies are subordinate to a ministry. In principle the ministries can instruct and control all aspects of their activities and functions unless a specific resolution exists which makes an exception to this. The theoretical perspectives outlined give rise to different expectations with regards to the significance of ministries. An institutional perspective would view ministries as a relevant and important variable. For example, there may be ministerial differences in delegating financial authority to subordinate units. From an instrumental standpoint major differences will not be expected based on affiliation to ministries. From this perspective, differences between central agencies are more likely to stem from differences in primary tasks and organizational form rather than ministerial differences.
It was relative unproblematic to establish a parent ministry for the greater part of the civil service organizations. Official budget documents facilitated information on this matter In the national budget, the state organizations are positioned under their parent ministry, and specific chapters are used for the singular ministry and its subordinate units. The disposition in the national budget and the chapter number used for the singular state organization thus indicate which ministry is considered as the parent ministry. However, it is not uncommon for civil service organizations to be listed several places in the budget and to receive funds from different ministries. In 1989 the regionalChief Administrative Officer (Fylkesmannen) received funds from the Department of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry ofConsumer Affairs and Administration. Another example is The Norwegian Research Council which received funds from more than six ministries in 1989. A common feature of many of the organizations receiving funds from several ministries is that they attend to tasks that can be said to cross ministerial boundaries. For such organizations, the point of departure has been set to the ministry allocating their main funding. There are an equal number of ministries in both years of the study (16), with some minor name changes.
The dispersion of units according to ministry for the year 1989 is shown in Table 2.
Here we can see variations between ministries in the number of subordinate organizations and organizational sub-types.
9 153 of 193 state organizations in 1999, formed comparable organizations in 1989. In addition, the population for 1999 includes 40 organizational units of more recent data, thus established after 1989.
Table 2. Parent ministry and forms of affiliation in 1989. Absolute figures and percent
Ministry Civil service
organizations with extended authority
Government administrative
enterprises
Ordinary civil service
organizations Total % The Ministry of Development Aid - - 3 3 1 The Ministry of Treasure and Customs - - 7 7 3 The Ministry of Fisheries 1 - 2 3 1 The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and
Administration - - 12 12 5
The Ministry of Defence - 1 11 12 5 The Ministry of Justice and Police - - 24 24 10 The Ministry of Church Affairs and
Education - - 28 28 11
The Ministry of Local Government and
Labour - - 10 10 4
The Ministry of Culture and Scientific
Affairs 2 1 57 60 24
The Ministry of Agriculture 1 2 26 29 12 The Ministry of the Environment - - 5 5 2 The Ministry of Industry 2 - 5 7 3 The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - 1 3 4 1 The Ministry of Transport and
Communications - 3 4 7 3
The Ministry of Social Affairs - 1 31 32 13 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs - - 6 6 2
Total 6 9 234 249 100
Source: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1988-89) and Norges Statskalender 1989
The Ministry of Culture and Scientific Affairsdistinguishes itself by having the majority of subordinate organizations in 1989, close to 24% of all civil service organizations this year. There were also many units under the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Church Affairs and Education, and the Ministry of Justice and Police. The Ministry of Development Aid and the Ministry of Fisheries had the fewest of all, with only three subordinate organizations each in 1989. We also found few organizations under the Ministry of Oil and Energy and Department of Environment.
All of the ministries had ordinary civil service organizations as subordinate organizations in 1989. Civil service organizations with extended authority were more concentrated and only relevant for four ministries (Department of Industry and Trade, The Ministry of
Culture and Scientific Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Fisheries).
Six ministries had governmental administrative enterprises in 1989. Three were subordinate to the Ministry of Transport and Communications (Norwegian Tele- communications Services, Norwegian State Railways and the Postal Services), and two to the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministries of Culture and Scientific Affairs (Norwegian Film Institute), Defence, Social Affairs, and Petroleum and Energy (the Statkraft Group) each had one unit with this particular organizational sub-type in 1989.
Table 3 shows many of the same variations between ministries in 1999, both in numbers and types. Four ministries can be considered as «large» by having many subordinate state organizations. The largest numbers of units were located under the Ministry of Church -, Education- and Research Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, closely followed by the ministries of Justice and Police, and the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. The number of state organizations under these ministries constituted more than 60% of all state organizations in 1999. There were fewest organizations under the Ministry of Oil and Energy, Ministry of Fisheries and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. For six of the ministries only ordinary civil service organizations were relevant to their functions, while five ministries had organizations with extended authority and seven had governmental administrative enterprises. The Ministry of Agriculture distinguishes itself as the ministry with the majority of organizations with extended authority in 1999, as does the Ministry of Church-, Education- and Research Affairs. As shown in Table 3, government administrative enterprises were to a larger degree spread throughout different ministries in 1999.
Table 3. Parent ministry and forms of affiliation in 1999. Absolute figures and percent
Ministry Civil service
organizations with extended authority
Government administrative
enterprises
Ordinary civil service organizations
Total %
Ministry of Labour and Administration - 1 7 8 4
Ministry of Children and Family affairs 2 - 6 8 4 Ministry of Treasure and Customs - - 5 5 3 Ministry of Fisheries - - 3 3 1
Ministry of Defence 1 1 3 5 3 The Ministry of Justice and the Police - - 26 26 14 Ministry of Church-, Education and
Research Affairs 3 - 35 38 20 Ministry of Local Government and
Regional Development 1 - 11 12 6 Ministry of Cultural Affairs - - 24 24 12
Ministry of Agriculture 4 1 6 11 6 Ministry of Environment - 1 4 5 3 Ministry of Trade and Industry - 1 7 8 4
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - - 2 2 1 Ministry of Transport and Communications - 1 4 5 3 Ministry of Social Affairs and Health - 2 28 30 15
Ministry of Foreign Affairs - - 3 3 1
Total 11 8 174 193
Source: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1998–99) and Norges Statskalender 1999.
P o l i c y a r e a
In the prolongation of organizational characteristics, tasks and functions can be perceived as having ties to certain policy areas or show different sector connections.
Policy area is more relevant from an institutional point of view, and several studies emphasise organizations’ environments as vital and influential for organizational features and activity (among others Meyer and Rowan 1977, Powell and DiMaggio 1991, Scott 1992, Røvik 1992, 1998, Brunsson and Olsen 1993). An instrumental perspective will not attribute the same relevance to the environments of organizations.
A policy area largely corresponds to purpose and state activity (Roness 2003) In this study we have chosen the following categorization:
• Finance
• Foreign affairs
• Research/education
• Environment/health/social affairs
• Economic affairs
• Culture
• Law/justice
• Communication
• Defence
• Municipal/county
• Other
The division between different policy areas mainly builds on what is considered to be
«national affairs» in the Norwegian Constitution (Mauland and Mellemvik 1998: 146–
47). In practical life, affiliation to the parent ministry and connection to policy area are very much the same, although some organizations may have purposes or activities that cross such relations (e.g. policy areas like research/education and communications). In the study (Rubecksen 2003) tasks and functions of civil service organizations were related to certain policy areas. Thus, an organization may have primary tasks within one policy area (called main policy area), but also secondary tasks in the same or a different policy area (then referred to as additional policy area).
The state organizations connection to different main policy areas in 1989 and 1999, are shown in Table 4:
Table 4. Main policy areas for state organizations in 1989 and 1999. Absolute figures and percent
Main policy area 1989 1999
Number of
organizations % (N=249) Number of
organizations % (N=193)
Finance 5 2 4 2
Foreign Affairs 3 1 3 2
Research/education 98 39 46 24
Environment/health/social
affairs 50 20 51 26
Economic affairs 27 11 17 9
Culture 18 7 24 12
Law/justice 22 9 24 12
Communications 10 4 8 4
Defence 10 4 5 3
Municipal/regional 1 1 5 3
Other 5 2 6 3
Total 249 100 193 100
Source: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1989–90, 1998–99) and Norges Statskalender 1989 and 1999
In 1989, 39% of civil service organizations had research/education as their relevant policy area. These were mostly research institutes, training facilities and colleges. Many of the organizations had environment/health/social affairs as their main policy area (20% of the population) and where state hospitals serve as an example. Fewest organizations had municipal/regional affairs as the main policy area; in 1989 this was only relevant for the Chief Administrative Officer. Not many organizations had the main policy area finance or foreign affairs.10
The policy areas environment/health/social affairs and research/education were also most widespread in 1999, however with some differences in the portion of units from 1989. Especially within the policy area research/education we can see a reduction in number of organizations during the ten-year period. The decline in numbers can partly be ascribed to the college reform in Norway during the 1990s. There were also relatively few organizations having finance, foreign affairs, defence and municipal/regional as their main policy area this year.
10 Five of the state organizations were registered as having «other» as main policy area in 1989, i.e. the Church Council, the Episcopate Offices, and the Governor of Svalbard.
T y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f o r m
State organizations may differ with regard to the type of organizational form they constitute, whether they themselves have subordinate units or not, if the organization comprises several more or less equal organizations and equal functions, or form a singular and unique organization. Thus, three types of organizational form may be distinguished. National organizations are singular organizations with unique tasks which have no subordinate unit, and form the only state organization of its kind in the country. State organizations that constitute national organizations with a central unit and one or more subordinate units have been classified as integrated organizations. Group organizations consist of more or less equivalent organizations spread throughout the country, with similar tasks. In the study such organizations are handled as a single unit.
Based on the criteria for what constitutes different types of organizational form, there were 168 national organizations in 1989 (thus 68% of the population this year), 43 integrated organizations (17%), and 38 group organizations (15%). Table 5 shows type of organizational form according to parent ministry in 1989.
Table 5. Organizational form and parent ministry in 1989. Absolute figures
Ministry National
organizations Integrated
organizations Group
organizations Total The Ministry of Development Aid 2 1 - 3
The Ministry of Treasure and Customs 4 2 1 7 The Ministry of Fisheries 1 2 - 3 The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and
Administration 8 3 1 12
The Ministry of Defence 8 3 1 12 The Ministry of Justice and Police 13 3 8 24
The Ministry of Church Affairs and Education 21 - 7 28 The Ministry of Local Government and Labour 5 4 1 10 The Ministry of Culture and Scientific Affairs 46 3 11 60
The Ministry of Agriculture 15 8 6 29 The Ministry of the Environment 3 2 - 5 The Ministry of Industry 4 3 - 7
The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy 3 1 - 4 The Ministry of Transport and Communications 1 6 - 7 The Ministry of Social Affairs 30 1 1 32
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4 1 1 6
Total 168 43 38 249
Source: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1988–89) and Norges Statskalender 1989.
From Table 5 we find the majority of national organizations in 1989 under the Ministry of Culture and Scientific Affairs (77% of all subordinate organizations affiliated to this ministry – 46 organizations). All ministries had national organizations as subordinate organizations in 1989, and most ministries had integrated organizations (with the exception of the Ministry of Church Affairs and Education). The majority of integrated organizations were located under the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and half of these were government administrative enterprises (the Postal Service, Norwegian State Railways, and Norwegian Telecommunications Services). A large part of the ministries also had group organizations as subordinate units (10 ministries). The Ministry of Culture and Scientific Affairs had the majority of these, i.e. the engineering colleges and the regional colleges.
The corresponding distribution of state organizations on organizational form in 1999 shows 131 national organizations (65% of this years population), 47 integrated organizations (24%) and 15 group organizations (11%).
Table 6. Dispersion of units according to organizational form, distributed by parent ministry for 1999.
Absolute figures
Ministry National
organizations Integrated
Organizations Group
Organizations Total Ministry of Labour and Administration 4 3 1 8
Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 6 1 1 8
Ministry of Treasure and Customs 2 3 - 5 Ministry of Fisheries - 3 - 3
Ministry of Defence 2 3 - 5
The Ministry of Justice and the Police 15 4 7 26 Ministry of Church-, Education- and Research
Affairs 33 1 4 38
Ministry of Local Government and Regional
Development 7 5 - 12
Ministry of Cultural Affairs 21 3 - 24 Ministry of Agriculture 3 7 1 11
Ministry of Environment 2 3 - 5 Ministry of Trade and Industry 4 4 - 8 Ministry of Petroleum and Energy 1 1 - 2
Ministry of Transport and Communications 2 3 - 5 Ministry of Health and Social Affairs 28 2 - 30 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1 1 1 3
Total 131 47 15 193
Source: Proposition to the Storting Report No. 1 (1998–99) and Norges Statskalender 1999.
While all ministries in 1999 had integrated organizations, and all but one (the Ministry of Fisheries) had national organizations, group organizations were much less common.
Only six ministries had such organizations this year. Group organizations were particularly relevant for the Ministry of Justice and Police (47% of all group organizations in 1999). Examples of such organizations were the county courts, the courts of appeal and the prison administration. The Ministry of Church-, Education- and Research Affairs also had a large proportion of the group organizations in 1999 (27%), among others the state colleges, the episcopate offices and the national education offices.
Tables 5 and 6 show there has been an increase over time in the proportion of integrated organizations within the population, while there has been a decrease in the
proportion of group organizations and national organizations from 1989 to 1999.11 The reduction from 1989 to 1999 in the number of state organizations (from 249 to 193 organizations) has thus been most extensive among national organizations (36), and subsequently group organizations (23). The college reform during the 1990s accounts for some of this, resulting in fewer national organizations as well as reorganization into larger and fewer group units. Moreover, various types of organizational form distribute themselves in certain patterns within the organizational sub types.
Table 7 shows the type of organizational form according to ordinary civil service organizations, civil service organizations with extended authority and government administrative enterprises in 1989:
Table 7. Organizational form according to form of affiliation in 1989. Absolute figures
Form of affiliation National
organizations Integrated
organizations Group
organizations Total Ordinary civil service organizations 156 40 38 234 Civil service units with extended
authority 6 - - 6
Government administrative enterprises 6 3 - 9
Total 168 43 38 249
Source: Proposition to the Storting No. 1, 1988–89 and Norges Statskalender 1989.
National organizations were the most common type of organizational form for ordinary civil service organizations, but integrated organizations and group organizations were also widespread. All civil service organizations with extended authority had the form of national organizations. This was also the case for the majority of the government administrative enterprises; however integrated organizations were also represented among these units.
Table 8. Organizational form according to form of affiliation in 1999. Absolute figures
Form of affiliation National
Organizations Integrated
organizations Group
organizations Total Ordinary civil service organizations 119 40 15 174
Civil service units with extended authority 8 3 - 11
Government administrative enterprises 4 4 - 8
Total 131 47 15 193
Source: Proposition to the Storting No. 1, 1998–99 and Norges Statskalender 1999.
11 In the years 1989–1999 4 integrated organizations experienced organizational ending events of various types (the Postal Services, Norwegian State Railways, Norwegian Telecommunications Services, and the Nautical Government Services). During 1989–99, 8 integrated organizations were established ((e.g. The National Library and the Norwegian Mapping Authority) http://www.nsd.uib.no/data/polSys/.
As Table 8 shows, the majority of national organizations in 1999 were ordinary civil service organizations. It is also only within this organizational sub-type that we found group organizations this year. None of the civil service organizations with extended authority were organized as group organizations in 1999, and most of these were national organizations. Among the eight units organized as government administrative enterprises there were four national organizations and four integrated organizations.
Task portfolio in state organizations
In addition to organizational features, state organizations can be described according to task portfolio, functions or roles. In the study, task portfolio was perceived to be a decisive variable from an instrumental point of view. The reason for this was the strong emphasis on values and functions prominent in the Hermansen Report. The Hermansen commission strongly recommended that the political authorities consider civil service organizations’ specific functions and values as the natural point of departure when selecting the appropriate organizational form. Based on an instrumental perspective, differences in task portfolio are expected to be more prominent between organizations with different organizational sub-types than among organizations sharing the same organizational form.
Task portfolio in state organizations comprises a combination of primary (main) and secondary (additional) tasks of various kinds that an organization can attend to. A state organization can maintain pure and restricted tasks or functions, or a combination of different functions and tasks. In classifying types of tasks and functions, the main distinction has been set between functions that comprise the exercise of public authority and service delivery/production. This division has previously been used in other settings (e.g.
St.meld. nr. 40 (1949), Rolland, Roness and Ågotnes 1998). In the study some additional adjustments have been made. Further differentiations rely mainly on the report from the Hermansen Commission and a report from The Swedish State Office (SOU 1999:15A).
Regulation and scrutiny has been singled out as a separate category from other kinds of exercising public authority due to the specific and circumscribed nature of these functions. For service delivery and production, a distinction is made between tasks which are primarily carried out on a non-profit basis, and those which are subject to market conditions. General Public Services refer to the production and delivery of collective goods/products and services, e.g. services procured by the Prison Administration, but also services and goods that are partly financed by the consumer (and not solely by the state), i.e. services provided by institutions such as state hospitals.
Business and Industrial services are more frequently directed towards market demand, and are largely financed commercially rather than by the state over the national budget. This type of service delivery/production thus operates within a different set of conditions and claims concerning their performance and execution. Nevertheless, the political authorities may have interest in steering these functions. In addition, such services may take place in situations varying from monopoly to full-scale competition. This will, of course, be of consequence in real life for the singular organization, but has been excluded from the study due to limitations in the sources utilized.
In addition to tasks involving exercising public authority (regulation, scrutiny and other means of control), and service and production (general public services, business and industrial services), the organizations have been classified according to a final category of policy formulation (policy shaping and advice). Thus, the state organizations have been mapped according to their possible engagement in the following five categories of tasks in 1989 and 1999:
• Regulation and scrutiny
• Other kinds of exercising authority
• General public services
• Business and industrial services
• Policy formulation (policy shaping and -advice).
The state organizations have been registered as having one main task and up to two secondary tasks. By separating and combining these five types of tasks, it has been possible to give a more detailed picture of task portfolio in state organizations compared to what would have been the case by registering only one task (Roness 2003).
T y p e s o f t a s k s
Exercising public authority refers to tasks performed in accordance with or based on law, regulations or precepts. As a main rule such functions are subject to general government rules, laws and regulations. The division between tasks involving exercising public authority and other types of tasks can occasionally be somewhat ambiguous and is therefore partly constructed on subjective perception. Typical functions considered to be examples of exercising public authority are administration of government grants and subsidies, administration and evaluation of precepts, administrative processing, distribution and allocation of resources (monetary/tax redistribution), administration of government insurance systems, arbitration and conflict-resolving, and upholding government contract law.
The administration of government grants/subsidies usually operates within specific regulations or precepts. Examples of state organizations handling these types of tasks in 1999 were the Directorate for Development Aid (administration of funds within relief work), the Norwegian Research Council (grants and funds for research) and the Norwegian Film Institute (administration of funds aiming at supporting the production of films). Administration of subsidies or grants is perhaps most common for organizations resembling directorates, or national organizations with a particular responsibility for a specific policy area. The same is the case for administrative functions like production and revision of precepts and regulations, various forms of processing and decision-making. Some tasks represent more ambiguous instances of exercising public authority. They might be performed in accordance with regulations or laws, but simultaneously have the character of service delivery or production. For example this
was relevant for the National Office for Social Insurance, and the Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund in 1999. The National Office for Social Insurance has thus been classified as having «exercising public authority» as its primary task, while the Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund is registered as having «general public services» as the primary task, and «exercising public authority» as a secondary task. These respective classifications are based on the first-mentioned authority’s importance in a wider social context, while the latter represents a limited and specialized service for government employees.
The district courts and courts of appeal are examples of civil service organizations whose primary task is exercising public authority, where arbitration, conflict-solving and processing in accordance to law are central tasks. In addition, the courts have the authority to enforce laws, regulations and decisions through provisions of penalty. Other central agencies with primary tasks involving arbitration and conflict solving do not necessarily have the right to enforce their decisions. Functions in these organizations have the character of counselling and guidance (e.g. the National Arbitration Tribunal and arbitration institutions, The National Insurance Court, The County Committees for Social Affairs), rather than processing in accordance to law.
Regulation and scrutiny is normally perceived as a sub-type of exercising public authority, but is treated here as a specialized function and is therefore singled out as a separate category of tasks. These functions may cover various forms of tasks, and also be qualitatively different from each other. Inspection, supervision and control all represent instances of regulation and scrutiny. In the study, regulation and scrutiny are closely related to the follow-up of regulations, laws and regulations or control by – or pursuant to these. It is also a central feature that the functions of scrutiny and regulation are directed towards other agents or institutions than the organization performing these functions. Whether organizations considered as being supervisory authorities have the right of enforcement does not form a relevant criterion in the study. For some units it seems obvious that these should be regarded as supervisory authorities. This refers among others to the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority and the Norwegian Agricultural Inspection Service, which comprise units of analysis in 1999.
Also for other organizations the name of the organization gives a clear indication of main tasks of regulation and scrutiny, although in a somewhat different manner than the above mentioned (e.g. the Gender Equality Ombudsman and The Consumer Ombudsman). Even though it may seem obvious that functions within scrutiny and regulation are central to many of the state organizations, ambiguous cases can also be found. As an example, the Office of the Ombudsman for Children is registered as having regulation and scrutiny as primary task in 1999, even though this organization is not normally perceived as a supervisory authority. The background for this seemingly odd classification is the Ombudsman’s role as the national authority for supervision of Norwegian law to be in accordance with UN Children’s Convention.
General Public Services refers to certain types of service supply or productions as previously mentioned, and are services of a public character carried out on a non-profit basis. This could be the production of free collective goods (e.g. the Prison Administration), or services and goods that are partly financed by the consumer (e.g.
services provided by the state hospitals). Functions like counselling or advisory tasks
(e.g. the Parental Compulsory School Committee), informative and guidance tasks, administrative services of different kinds (e.g. the Institute for Population-based Cancer Research, the Product Register), equipment and delivery services (e.g. The National Police Equipment Service), production and administration of knowledge and research (e.g. universities, research institutes), and training and competence building (e.g.
Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy, C, Statskonsult, – the Directorate of Public Management, Norwegian Support System for Special Education) are also included in general public services.
Business and Industrial Services include service delivery and production in a form of market, where primarily the level of demand regulates the level of the organization’s activity. This mainly applies to government administrative enterprises, i.e. in 1999 Statsbygg – the Directorate of Public Management, The Norwegian Mapping Authority and the Norwegian Guarantee Institute for Export Credits (GIEK), but also ordinary civil service organizations are registered with such functions as secondary tasks in 1999 (e.g. the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, the production units of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, parts of the Norwegian Coastal Administration, Norwegian Metrology and Accreditation Service, and Norwegian National Rail Administration).
Policy formulation (and advice) refers to processes and functions of a more political character, directed towards the political authorities (cabinet and parliament) in the form of preparation and/or implementation of sector policies, arrangements and instruments (Statskonsult 2000b). Since, through the hierarchal structure of government, all civil service organizations contribute towards policy formulation to some extent, a restrictive approach has been chosen in the classification of such tasks for the state organizations in the study. Instances where such functions have been registered as primary or additional tasks are organizations responsible for the development and/or adjustments of general regulations and policies within particular policy areas, professional counselling and the role as an advisor to parent ministry and/or within certain policy areas, role as a vital implementer of sector policies (e.g. the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation – NORAD), and the function of an active agent and «lobbying» (e.g. the Office of The Ombudsman for Children and The Centre for Gender Equality). Other examples are law preparing activities and organizations functioning as bodies entitled to comment.
Table 9 show the distribution of state organizations according to primary and secondary tasks in 1989 based on the criteria earlier specified. Each unit has been registered with one main task, and up to two secondary tasks (thus the number of additional tasks does not correspond to number of organizations).
